Talk:Columbia University rape accusation controversy

Deletion discussion

Deletion discussion here Nblund (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sourcing

Regardless of what happens with the deletion discussion: primary sources should be avoided for BLP materials, and legal filings, in particular, should not be used as sources. This article seems perilously close to a POV fork if it hasn't already crossed that line, and including references that have been already been discussed and rejected at the other entry definitely add to that problem. Nblund (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Does "support assertions about a living person" apply to what the plantiff claims? Another issue is that Sulkowicz confirmed the authenticity and time stamps but stated they were misinterpreted. She personally provided an annotated version here she does offer her explanation is it possible to use both? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was asked by Valoem to comment. As I personally understand it, a plaintiff's claim is a claim -- they may say whatever they please. It doesn't mean we can necessarily repeat it. If it is reported in multiple good reliable sources, it can be said that "as X reported in Y, ...." The same thing goes for any statement in a case from either party: the only thing which has any authority is the final decision. WP is not a jury. for further discussion, I suggest the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question Valoem: the claims made in the filing by the plaintiff are also primary sources, as are the transcripts and annotations from Sulkowicz. To the extent that these documents are quoted or discussed in other sources, we should, as much as possible, paraphrase, rather than directly quote participants in heated disputes, and carefully avoid quoting in a way that might be selective or misleading. Nblund (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's confirmed you are correct, we can only use secondary sources that quote or paraphrase the lawsuit. I found several sources, but that can be added later. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

This entry is a spinout of an article that is already under discretionary sanctions. I've never dealt with this before, but it seems like the same sanctions would almost certainly apply here. Any objections to adding that tag? Nblund (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Young article

There seems to be undue emphasis on the article by Cathy Young - it is cited 13 times and makes up a significant part of the "Reception" section. Looking at the Young article and its author, it isn't clear why this is given such weight. The implication is that Young is the key expert on this topic, but I don't think that is the case. What do others think? LaMona (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A second Cathy Young editorial ("Did 'Mattress Girl' Tell the Truth? Not Very Likely") is cited three more times. I think that's a definite problem.

In response to this, Cathy Young is not a neutral source, she's a person with a fairly well-known ideological position on this topic who is clearly taking a side here, and she is not a reliable source for claims of fact, especially when we're dealing with a delicate BLP topic. Nblund (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I also see this as a problem, we should definitely reduce that, though in few of the instances it was cited along with other sources still we shouldn't rely so heavily on one source. But it's not like Cathy young articles were blog posts, they do have reliability because there is an editorial process in Daily beast. I don't think they would allow her to report a factual information wrong and I don't see anywhere that says that's an op-ed. But calling it not neutral is not accurate, she may have her opinions on the subject but that doesn't preclude her from reporting the events in a neutral manner. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Darwinian Ape: Cathy Young has pretty consistently and unabashedly accused Sulkowicz of not telling the truth. Online magazines usually don't label things as being "op-eds", and frequently blur opinion and news content: none of Erin Gloria Ryan's Jezebel posts on this topic are labeled as op-eds either, but they're not neutral. This stuff is usually not considered reliable for statements of fact, and it's especially suspect here. Nblund (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah well that's an op-ed.(so is the jezebel post btw) The daily beast source on the other hand looks more like an interview/investigative journalism, not an opinion piece. So if your claim is that Daily Beast itself is not a RS, which I don't think is accurate, you should perhaps take it to WP:RSN. As I said, a journalist with an opinion is not an uncommon thing, the question is whether she wrote an editorial based on opinion or an article based on the facts. Unless of course if you think a journalist loses the ability to be neutral when they express an opinion about a topic. I've read the article before, and skimmed it now to refresh my memory and I couldn't see an opinion piece. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I know they're editorial commentary, that was my point. Neither are actually called "editorials" on the page, even though they are clearly opinion columns. Cathy Young is a columnist who writes opinion pieces. Her background is not in journalism, and DailyBeast doesn't appear to employ her as a journalist. I'm fairly confident that much of the material probably is factual, but the facts are selective and the article is clearly sympathetic to one side here, so it shouldn't be relied on for contentious statements of fact about a living person.

You're welcome to take it to RSN or start an RFC, but what, specifically, do you want in the entry from Young's article that couldn't be cited from a more solidly reliable source? Nblund (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding the Facebook messages between Nungesser and Sulkowicz which I don't think any other RS cover them in full, except for the jezebel source. I think that's an important part of Nungesser's defense. We could add the Sulkovicz's side from the jezebel source, and the messages from the Cathy Young article so that we have both sides of the story. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There are six pages of Facebook conversations, and covering them in full is almost certainly undue. Cathy Young and Nungesser see these messages as a big deal, but the fact that they recieve minimal coverage elsewhere suggests it's probably undue to make them a centerpiece of the discussion. I'm not sure why we can't simply paraphrase them. If we think it's really necessary: Emily Bazelon does give one of the quotes here, and I would be fine with that.Nblund (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment No revert to original version. In term of neutral sources (any source which is not men right activist or feminist) most have been negative. Text/Facebook messages should be included too since Sulkowicz has confirmed the time stamps and authenticity. She has sent an annotated version to Jezebel, which states her intentions behind the messages, which should also be included. NPOV allows both sides to state their views plainly. After the AfD, we can fix this article. I will replaces some of the Young sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that most neutral sources have been highly negative, I'm not really sure how that's possible.

Sulkowicz has confirmed the timestamps while simultaneously accusing Young --explicitly-- of taking the quotes out of context to serve her agenda. Wikipedia cautions against using quotations in a way that misrepresents the source material, and we need to be especially careful here, because we're dealing with a very sensitive BLP entry. I think it's plenty to say that they exchanged Facebook messages described as friendly or to paraphrase the material. If we are going to include them, we need to avoid simply deferring to Cathy Young's judgement regarding which quotes are informative, and look for quotes that are used in neutral sources. We should also avoid giving undue weight to this topic: Nungesser sees this as important evidence, but Sulkowicz doesn't, neither does her school, and neither do a number of commentators. It certainly isn't the centerpiece of most of the coverage of this issue.

NPOV doesn't exactly say both sides get to state their views. NPOV requires us to describe conflicts in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Just throwing up quotes isn't necessarily neutral. Nblund (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry "highly" is a bit strong, just negative, I haven't voted yet, but I'll ping Sarah and others, I think you'll find what I have say compelling. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as opinions are attributed to the author making them, then they are allowed, but if the opinion being offered is being cited excessively, then obviously there is a WP:UNDUE issue. As far as the Daily Beast article is concerned, it has received significant coverage in other reliable sources. The New York Times Magazine, CNN, The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Columbia Spectator, National Post, New York Magazine, and she has confirmed the FB messages and responded to the DB article, Emma Sulkowicz responds to Daily Beast piece. So there shouldn't be any problem crafting content that satisfies WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Shortening reception sections

I went ahead and combined the "Commentary on the lawsuit" and "Reception" sections. They appear to both be composed of editorial content critical or supportive of one side or the other, so it seemed sensible to put them together. I trimmed a couple of excessively long quotes: all of the quotes were 2+ sentences long, and the one from Samantha Harris was 6 or 7 lines long.

Regarding balance: the "commentary on lawsuit" contained 3 quotes that appeared to be positive about the lawsuit, and one quote that appeared negative, and there seemed to be a major length discrepancy. The "Reception" section contained 5 sources making negative statements about Sulkowicz, and 2 making positive statements. The current revision is still off-balance (4 vs 2, with McCardle's being both negative and positive), but hopefully is a little more balanced in terms of the space afforded to each side. This could still use some work. Nblund (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why this was reverted, Valoem, but it seems like there's a basic copy-editing problem here, in addition to a balance one. The Commentary on the Lawsuit Section is three paragraphs composed almost entirely of extended quotations, and this is excessive. Nblund (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I support Nblund's edits to that section. There is no need to quote (or even paraphrase) opinions of others; it should be sufficient to state the facts. Among those facts can be that some commentators had opinion X and others had opinion Y, but their arguments are not NPOV. I don't see why a WP article needs to bring in the actual opinions - it can report on them but it shouldn't absorb them into the article. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We can state what a commentator believes (if that commentator is particularly important), but there's no need to rehearse their whole argument. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

On that note: it seems like some of the quotes from the suit are a bit much. The comments characterizing Sulkowicz as a spurned lover (which are paraphrased in the lead, for some reason) and the part accusing Bollinger of "contemptible moral cowardice" are just personal insults that have no actual bearing on the case itself. I'm not sure they actually help explain the suit.

Valoem , since you reverted, maybe you can weigh in somewhere here? I think there's a pretty strong case for trimming this stuff back, but i'm open to some suggestions regarding what should stay and what should go. Nblund (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get a response, so I went ahead and trimmed the section back, added one additional editorial, and added a little bit of detail about the Mic.com piece. Again, I don't think this is perfect, and I'm open to input, but I hope it's an improvement over the previous version. Nblund (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Valoem once again. I'm certainly open to compromising on these edits, but you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion on the talk page, even though I pinged you previously, and your edit summary doesn't offer any meaningful insight in to why you think these block quotes are necessary. Nblund (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad: If you read the discussion above, you'll notice that your edit summary doesn't really address the issue. No one raised a sourcing issue, but they are

• Obviously unbalanced: all three comments actually come from a single article on Reason online, and all three are from people supportive of Nungesser. None of them are appear to be legal experts, they're just pundits.

• Long: the comments from Soave, Johnson, and Harris are mostly composed of extended block quotes.
• Redundant: Harris' point is paraphrased in the commentary section below

I'm pretty dubious that these are actually the most important sources here. It really just seems like an editor in a hurry picked three negative comments and stuffed them in a section. If we do think it's essential to discuss Soave and Johnson's views, why not paraphrase them and then balance their comments with comments from commentators who are supportive of Sulkowicz? Nblund (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the commentary. It's topical to the article and from reliable sources. KC Johnson is a notable expert in the law on these matters, and FIRE do nothing but work on rights and laws around them.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Harris is paraphrased in the reception section. KC Johnson seems fine, but why can't he be paraphrased and put in the existing reception section? Nblund (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This line, "political journalist Ian Tuttle criticized Sulkowicz's response and wrote in National Review that 'what Sulkowicz wants is to make claims about another person that cannot be challenged, checked, questioned, or doubted'" is a direct response to this quote:

“ I have already been violated by both Paul and Columbia University once. It is extremely upsetting that Paul would violate me again — this time, with the help of a reporter, Cathy Young. I just wanted to fix the problem of sexual assault on campus — I never wanted this to be an excuse for people to dig through my private Facebook messages and frame them in a way as to cast doubt on my character. It’s unfair and disgusting that Paul and Cathy would treat personal life as a mine that they can dig through and harvest for publicity and Paul’s public image. ”

Removing the context makes it more difficult to comprehend, this shows a clearer picture. Also the bulk of his defense is based on Facebook messages sent, you seem intent on removing it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: I'm responding to your comment here, since there's already an ongoing discussion involving other editors. To re-iterate: Wikipedia style guidelines discourage excessive quoting, and so I attempted to shorten some of those quotes while preserving the basic outline of the argument. Maybe I didn't do a great job, but I'm totally open to working with you on this. Regardless: there's too much quoting there, and it doesn't help the article and it doesn't add clarity. The objection to paraphrasing any of those quotes kind of smacks of ownership.

Regarding the Facebook messages: I'm fine with paraphrasing in a way that includes that detail if you think it's essential, but they're already mentioned here, and quoted here, so that accusation is a little silly. Nblund (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This quote would be necessary, removing it removes the context of the statement in the later paragraph. Also a section regarding text messages and responses need to be mentioned. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point. I think the solution is to just use a different quote, because I don't really think this particular argument from Ian Tuttle is essential for readers' understanding of the issue, and because there is already and imbalance in the commentary. If we include Sulkowicz's quote and Tuttle's response, could we then revert back to paraphrase for the other commentary?

The Facebook messages are mentioned, are you saying you also want them mentioned in a paraphrase in the "Reception" section? Or are you saying that we should have a section dedicated to the Facebook messages? I'm fine with the former, but if it's the latter, that seems like a separate issue. Nblund (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten a response from either Valoem or Mattnad, I went ahead and rearranged things again. The "commentary on the lawsuit" section was composed entirely of opinion content, so it seems like it should be a subheading of "reception". I trimmed, paraphrased and rearranged some quotes. There's still a discrepancy in terms of the size and length dedicated to pro-Sulkowicz vs. pro-Nungesser commentary here. Nblund (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

RS noticeboard post

Since it's come up again, I went ahead and posted at the RS noticeboard about whether or not an NYPOST opinion column is a reliable source for a claim of fact or quotation from a living person. I also asked for feedback on the citations to Jezebel.com and the Daily Beast. Nblund (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be fairly clear that (especially while discussing living persons) we cannot state in a factual tone that which we cite to opinion pieces. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The RS noticeboard post isn't getting much response, so we might need to just move this to the BLP board if we don't see anything develop there in the next day or so. In the mean time: the materials should not be added back on to the page until a consensus is reached. Nblund (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored a part that was deleted "Journalist and writer Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote in the New York Post that two days after the alleged rape, Nungesser had invited Sulkowicz via Facebook messaging to come to a party saying, "Small shindig in our room tonight-bring cool freshman." And she responded, "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr". A couple weeks later Sulkowicz messaged saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Riley noted that there are six pages' worth of back-and-forth Facebook messages between the two which were released by Nungesser and subsequently published by Cathy Young. Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context." While NY post article is an opinion piece, we attribute it to the author and messages are independently verifiable through Cathy Young source. Also in the Jezebel article Sulkowicz confirms the authenticity. I think the sources are adequate to include the content I just restored.Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear cut: an opinion piece is not a reliable source for a claim of fact about a living person. If this is really the best sourcing you can find for this statement, it probably isn't notable enough to warrant mention anyway. Regardless, this needs to stop until we reach a consensus or someone finds a better cite. Just adding the material back in over and over again is not going to get us anywhere.

It's really odd to me that the Jezebel article is being used as "verification" for Riley's interpretation. Here's what she says:

Sulkowicz tells Jezebel there are more than a few things wrong with these transcripts. First, included are conversations that happened between them months before the alleged assault. Second, time stamps are removed, and the conversations featured omissions that Sulkowicz felt painted a misleading picture. She informed Young of her concerns.

How is this source being interpreted as a confirmation of Riley and Young's presentation of these quotes? For that matter, why is an opinion piece being quoted in the "background" portion of the text at all, when we already quote this same opinion piece at length in the reception section? Is Naomi Schaeffer Riley really one of the most notable voices here? Nblund (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not just jezebel, Cathy young article also reports that she acknowledged the authenticity of the messages. There is no objection to the substances of the messages in jezebel piece, just an accusation of being out of context. As for why it's in the background portion, it adds context to Nungesser's claim that he was not allowed to introduce what he considers crucial evidence. Otherwise we just have their words for it, a classic he said she said situation. But quoting the messages themselves allows reader to draw their own conclusions.Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post posted a link to the screenshots of the Facebook messages, and multiple sources have covered the DB article as well: Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. and New York Magazine - In a message sent two days after the incident, Sulkowicz accepts Nungesser's invitation to a party, adding: "Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz" and "because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr." and this opinion piece from the Columbia Spectator - In fact, the most concrete account of the relationship between the two is the Facebook conversation that has only recently come to light. I see no reason to exlude this content based on the amount of sources covering it, (exactly how much should be included is another story).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

DA: I think she's absolutely objecting to the substance of the messages, and context is key: the RS guidelines caution that editors should be careful to avoid quoting out of context, and specifically mention that this is a risk when dealing with quotes from partisan sources. The edit you reverted also included context about the Facebook messages, it just used a neutral, reliable source rather than an op-ed.

Isaidnoway: the NYTIMES source you cite was the one that was previously cited. You're right that reliable sources cover this content, which is why it seems particularly egregious that some editors are insisting on using the NYPOST here rather than something sensible. Nblund (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll assume good faith here in that this article is still in it's early stages and is being heavily edited right now, and discussions are taking place, but with the amount of sources posted here on the TP, we have enough sourcing to support the content (I have more sources if needed). I suggest we also use attribution where necessary as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We are already reporting her side with this line:"Sulkowicz has confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but has said that snippets have been published out of context. Sulkowicz says she sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk to Nungesser about the incident." And the statements from Riley piece is attributed to the author. My problem with the reverted text was that it described the events in a he said she said manner. I think we should avoid that when we have the opportunity to present actual quotations. I've added NYMag source and tweaked a bit. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't her views still being presented in a "she said" manner? Take a look at that paragraph:

"She complained that a university investigator took inaccurate notes of interviews with her, and that she had to offer unnecessarily graphic details during the hearing.[17] A graduate student who accompanied Nungesser to the hearing contested this last point, “The panel were asking sensible questions; they were equally asked of Paul, and had been asked of Paul through the entire process."[13] Nungesser complained that he had not been allowed to introduce Facebook messages as evidence.[13] Two days after the alleged rape, Sulkowicz accepted an invitation from Nungesser via Facebook messaging to come to a party, responding; "lol yusss, Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr."[24] "

Sulkowicz complains about the hearing, and we cite a pro-Nungesser source. Nungesser makes a claim, and we give specific example of supporting evidence, and then cite another pro-Nungesser source.

Cathy Young sort of admits that these messages aren't particularly persuasive: "To be sure, many rape victims’ advocates would argue that women traumatized by sexual violence, especially by someone they trusted and cared about, may deal with trauma in ways that don’t make sense to an observer". Mic.com and Jezebel both make this same point (those citations are clearly being misused there), the NYMag article you cited also makes the same point. Somehow we mention the messages three separate times without making a note of that fact. Nblund (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the only objective evidence we have are the facebook messages which both parties acknowledged as authentic. I think we are representing her take on this evidence which will necessarily be her opinion, ergo reported in a "she said manner" which is also true for opinions of Nungesser or any other party(e.g the student who contested to Sulkowicz's claims.) The point is to avoid this when we can. In case of facebook messages we can avoid it by quoting the messages, so we should. We can include the opinion that rape victims who are traumatized by sexual assault may exhibit this behavior if it's a point commonly made, as long as we attribute it accurately. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

These messages are hand-picked by Nungesser for the purposes of protesting his innocence, so they aren't objective, and whether or not they constitute "evidence" is actually a matter of opinion. That's clearly Nungesser's view of them, but that is a view that Cathy Young even acknowledges is widely disputed. Why are we making Nungesser's case for him?

Further, article structure can be an NPOV issue even when we're dealing with objective facts. It's objectively true that Nungesser was a college athlete who is described as "physically formidable" in sources, but I think everyone would recognize an NPOV problem if I repeatedly pointed that fact out every time the article mentioned that he was accused of an assault. People would (correctly) see that as a bit of innuendo that was intended to imply that those accusations were more credible than they actually were. Nblund (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your argument about the objective facts being used to reflect a POV, but that's not what we are doing here. Nugesser has a claim that there are "friendly" facebook messages between the two after the alleged incident, Sulkowicz claims that those messages has a different context, i.e she was upset and wanted to talk to him. These are both claims that are the interpretations of the same facebook messages we quote in the article. We report Nungesser's claim and Sulkowicz's claim, and we show the actual messages that the claims are about. No innuendo, no opinion other than the two people. Just Neutral and balanced reporting of the claims and facts. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we have at least some common ground. So here's what I think makes sense, I'm open to suggestions.

• 1. There's no reason to quote Naomi Schaeffer Riley's characterization in that section, especially since she's already quoted again in the "reception" section. We have a better source for a quote (the Bazelon article) and Naomi Schaeffer Riley's characterizations of the timing and the length of the text messages actually seem factually incorrect. If we are going to quote editorial commentary, it should be balanced, and we should remove problematic terms like "noted".
• 2. The messages are mentioned in three separate places, and the same message is actually quoted again in the "reception" section. It would probably be better to mention them in one place and then provide context.
• 3. Either Cathy Young's note -- that these are not inconsistent with "normal behavior" for a sexual assault victim, or something similar from another source should be cited somewhere in the entry.Nblund (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes. I think the comments from Zavadski could be moved to a reception section if we also moved commentary from the grad student, but I wanted to at least one pro-Sulkowicz comment for balance. I think it would also be reasonable to discuss dedicating a paragraph in that section to a balanced discussion of the responses to the Facebook messages. Nblund (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I tried to be more diplomatic about this in my initial edit summary, but it was added back in. Let me be more direct: I removed this content because its clearly copy-pasted with minimal changes from this article. Just changing a couple of words around doesn't fix the problem.

Wiki

Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz;[39] that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.[5] ... He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[39] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[41] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[42]

Source

In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.“Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”

Don't restore this as is.Nblund (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that source, good catch, anyways I reworded it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Young again

I don't know why this statement is included: "Cathy Young stated that his case was fabricated.[24]" This is about the male student who claims to have been assaulted. There is no reason to believe that Cathy Young has any inside knowledge of something that happened between two individuals, most likely with no one else observing. It makes no sense that her statement, which simply must be no more than an opinion, would be included here. This is not factual. I am removing it. LaMona (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't why this statement is included either: Cathy Young, who has a history of reporting critically on sexual assault activism. If an editor wants to assign attribution to Young for a statement she has made, that's fine, but her "history of reporting" is not relevant to this article. Are we going to apply this same standard to the rest of the author's in sources here, and examine their "history of reporting", so we can also make a pointy edit about their "history".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't her history be relevant here? She's pretty widely seen as a critic of mainstream feminism and of sexual assault activism in the same vein as Christina Hoff Sommers and Katie Roiphe, and she's pretty clearly a supporter of Nungesser. WaPo describes her as having written a number of stories critical of sexual assault activism. That seems pretty relevant here, and there's a solid source for the description. Nblund (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe what we should be doing is explaining why this person's writing gets more than passing attention on this topic. When there are controversies, some people come to represent certain points of view -- often these folks are "pundits", which strongly implies that they are providing opinions. A person who represents a point of view may be used in an article to illustrate that POV. Young might be the best "pundit" to represent the view of the "rape skeptics." If so, her work should be introduced as such in the article. As it is, it sounds like she is being presented as an expert on the topic, someone whose view holds weight. In fact, she is represents one set of opinions in a discussion in which the facts are not actually known outside of the two main subjects. The Jezebel articles might be the best representatives of the "rape believers" view. If introduced as representative opinions, then I think we retain NPOV.

As an analogy, we don't quote Rush Limbaugh on the facts of global warming, but as a pundit on the "unbeliever" side. Quoting his statements on global warming without making that clear would be a clear confusion of science and opinion. One of the problems of rape cases is that you cannot obtain sufficient facts so punditry overruns the discussion. We mustn't let that happen here. LaMona (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject., and it goes on to state: When dealing with a potentially biased source...Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source. I would agree that in-text attribution to Young for her opinions is appropriate, but trying to discredit her opinions or her reporting on this story by deliberately pointing to her "history of reporting", looks like a pointy edit, designed to caution the reader that this author's opinions or reporting on the subject shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously because of her "history of reporting". Additionally, by including the phrase "sexual assault activism", implies that a "sexual assault" occurred here, and that is biased against Nungesser. Let's try to remember that Nungesser was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and is a living individual, so WP:BLP certainly applies to him in this article and on this talk page. Furthermore, the primary topic of this article is not about "sexual assault activism", this article is about an unfounded allegation of rape and the controversy surrounding that unfounded allegation. There's a reason we wikilink to existing articles on WP, like Cathy Young, so reader's can click on that blue link and discover additional information about the subject wikilinked.

And as to the point about why this person's writing gets more than passing attention on this topic, is because "this person's writing" on the subject matter was significantly covered in other reliabe sources: The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Columbia Spectator, National Post, New York Magazine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway: the WaPo source you cite says that "Young has written a number of stories critical of campus anti-rape activism, including a profile of another accused rapist from Brown.". I don't think that discredits her at all. You're right that Wikipedia:BIASED suggests that it's sometimes okay to use biased sources, but it gives specific examples of how that in-text attribution should look: it's not really sufficient to just say the person's name. We need to give readers an in-text cue of the person's bias or ideology. This seems like a good way to do that.

Calling Sulkowicz a sexual assault activist doesn't imply that she was herself sexually assaulted, would anyone dispute that she's an activist? Nblund (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph where that description of her "history of reporting" is located, is in relation to the "Facebook messages", and it's at the end of this sentence: Nungesser later described these messages as "amiable" and released transcripts of these messages... There's not even one mention of "sexual assault activism" at all in that entire section, in that sentence, nor in the section about Sulkowicz's performance art piece - and for that matter, the only place in this entire article where I see the word "activism", is in the Commentary on lawsuit sub-section, and Young is not even used as a source there. So again, why is her "history of reporting critically on sexual assault activism" relevant to a section about Facebook messages, and specifically, a sentence in relation to Facebook messages. If the description of her "history of reporting" was being used because Young is quoted in this article criticizing "sexual assault activism", then that would be fine, but it's not being used that way.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevance seems hard to miss: Sulkowicz is a noted anti-rape activist, and Young has a history of criticizing anti-rape activism. The Washington Post article points this out while reporting on Young's Daily Beast article -- so reliable sources seem to also see the relationship here. It seemed like you acknowledged earlier that she wasn't really a neutral source and that in-text attribution was appropriate, do you have an alternate idea for how to communicate that fact to readers? Nblund (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are we editoralizing in Wikipedia's voice about this particular writer, when Sarah Kaplan is the writer who offered that opinion about Young and other journalists? The WaPo article goes on to say after the quote from Kaplan about Young: In the wake of Rolling Stone’s inaccuracy-riddled feature on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, she’s not the only journalist doing so. Slate reporter Emily Yoffe was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her piece on “The College Rape Overcorrection.” Why isn't the rest of this passage included? Why was this particular sentence cherry-picked, leaving out the context of the whole passage? There are other writers who are included as refs who have a POV biased in Sulkowicz's favor, why isn't that being pointed out? The Columbia Spectator is being used multiple times as refs in this article and a former opinion editor for the newspaper admitted biased reporting -"by not being thorough and impartial", why aren't we including a note to their refs being used about their biased history of reporting that was favorable to Sulkowic? It's not fair to single out Young, cherry-pick an opinion offered by Kaplan, and then present it in this article in Wikipedia's voice. I think it's best to just leave out any comments or opinions concerning the bias' or ideologies of specific writers, and instead focus on the content that they wrote, and present it in a NPOV and use attribution, when it's clear that it's their opinion.

And yes, I do have an alternate idea for how to communicate that fact to readers, we wikilink her name, and if readers are interested in finding out more about Young and her history of reporting, then they can click on that blue link to Cathy Young.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow: what additional context is provided by mentioning Emily Yoffe? I'm not opposed to that, I guess, but it seems like like a non sequitur given that Emily Yoffe isn't cited anywhere in this entry. Just so I'm clear: is it your view that Cathy Young hasn't written a number of articles critical of sexual assault activism, or are you just saying we shouldn't mention it here? Nblund (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED advises using "in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." If reliable sources have identified that Young has a bias, especially if the bias is that she is critical of the kind of person and/or event the article is quoting her comments on, it is appropriate to identify that à la the examples given, "Conservative Republican", "Marxist", etc. -sche (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is moot now, since I checked the sourcing (should have done that to beging with), and the DB article makes it clear (twice) that - "Nungesser provided The Daily Beast with Facebook messages with Sulkowicz from August, September, and October 2012." and here as well - After a summer of affectionate and often intimate Facebook chats (screenshots of which Nungesser...provided to The Daily Beast)." I referenced it in the article to make it clear they were provided to the Daily Beast, and the Daily Beast is the one who published them. I moved the passage about Young's "history of reporting" to the Reception section, where it is actually relevant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference that makes: Cathy Young wrote the article for the Daily Beast. Cathy Young's article is being used as a source for statements of fact in multiple places in the entry, and her history is relevant. If we avoid using Cathy Young for statements of fact, and instead just mention her views in the "reception" section, I think this makes sense, but moving the in-text attribution to the bottom of the article seems like it obscures an important piece of context from readers. Nblund (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked the language to "showed", because the Facebook messages were provided to the Daily Beast, as evidenced by the refereneces, and they were published by The Daily Beast, as evidenced by the references. I think it's fair to say that Cathy Young was shown and reported on the facebook messages provided to the Daily Beast, but implying they were directly released to her is in contradiction to the sources. I've been trying to keep the POV creep out of the article, so it doesn't turn into a POV mess like the mattress article, but it seems like that will be impossible, considering editor's are more concerned about pointing out the journalist's who wrote articles about this controversy that they don't agree with, rather than reporting on the content that was published. But nonetheless, as someone accurately pointed out to me, her history of reporting can also be interpreted to show her expertise in reporting on unfounded allegations of this nature.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"... her expertise in reporting on unfounded allegations of this nature." The mere statement "unfounded allegations" reveals a definite POV, and is not factual. We can all have our opinions about what happened, but none of us can conclude what did or did not happen between two people in private. If you come to the article wishing to push this POV, then we will definitely have a struggle keeping this as neutral as possible. Please stick to the reported - and contradictory and incomplete - facts without drawing conclusions of your own. LaMona (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The facts that I have seen reported (and what the Mattress performance article clearly states in the lead), indicate that Nungesser was found not responsible by the university for the allegations, and he was never found guilty by a jury or judge on the allegations, so "unfounded allegations" is correct and factual. So I didn't come to this article "wishing to push this POV", because this POV is already included (per the university and law-enforcement). If it's your intention to introduce a POV that is contrary to what reliable sources have reported on what the university found or what law-enforcement has said concerning the allegations, then you need to stop editing this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not our role to draw conclusions about whether the accusations are unfounded or not, but rather to simply report what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There are many sources on this topic that have potential POV if we were so inclined to post them. We include quotes from Jezebel (an offshoot of Gawker) in this article without qualifying them in any way even though Jezebel writers have a strong POV and it's not exactly known for editorial quality or fairness.Mattnad (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We quote a Jezebel writer once, in the "reception" section. We cite Cathy Young 13 times, all but one of those in the main article body. I actually agree that Young is roughly analogous to Jezebel in terms of reliability and neutrality, which makes me wonder why there's such a massive discrepancy in how heavily we rely on Young here. Nblund (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I used Jezebel as an example: there are many many other opinions from other sources in the article. The Huffington Post? Amanda Marcott blogging? By the way, the NY Times also reported on the Facebook messages - a completely different author and article than what's in this one: "The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,”" You make this seem like it's all Cathy Young. But very professional sources have picked up and VERIFIED what Young has written. You really think the NY Times editors would not have checked on these things?Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually made the exact same point you're making: it's unnecessary to rely so heavily on Cathy Young given that other reliable sources have covered most of this stuff, and we should work on replacing some of those citations. Seem fair?

Regarding opinion: no one has argued that we need to eliminate all opinion, but Young should be handled similarly to Marcotte: she's cited once in a reception section alongside other opinion pieces. Looking at the sections explicitly dedicated to opinion, there's a clear bias in terms of space and number of citations for opinion pieces favoring Nungesser: the Commentary on the Lawsuit section has three sources, all supportive of Nungesser, and all three originating from a Reason online article. That doesn't seem like it's even an ambiguous neutrality issue, but you reverted it, why don't we re-examine that? Nblund (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename?

I'm not sure this should be titled Columbia University rape controversy, perhaps Mattress Performance rape controversy is better because Columbia University has done nothing wrong from what I am reading. Any opinions? @Darwinian Ape:, @DGG:, @Isaidnoway:. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how using the name of the institution where this took place (and the institution was inherently involved) implies that the university did anything wrong. There might be a better name, but this isn't about the Mattress performance, which is the topic of a different article. This is about the event that led to a legal case which is a broader topic than the performance. The performance was in response to the events leading up to the case, which took place at the university and included actions by the university. Again, not implying blame, but location and involvement. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll second LaMona's point. A name change could be in order, but the lawsuit (which was one of the topics this entry was supposed to cover) is against Columbia University. Nblund (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the events had taken place at the Columbia university, Nungesser sued the university. So it's a main actor and also the venue. The current title returns 648 results in google, while "Mattress Performance rape controversy" returns zero, so the current name is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But the current title is a bit vague, for it can be any number of rape controversies in Columbia University past or future. There was also another title suggestion( Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University) at the AFD discussion, suggested by @Bus stop: and endorsed by @E.M.Gregory:, pinging them for additional input. Though this title doesn't return any results either. I also feel like "controversy" is a best way to describe this kerfuffle, so it should be in the title. "Mattress Performance rape controversy at Columbia University" perhaps? Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversy happened at Columbia, and ind therefore this is an appropriate name.; that's how it will be thought of and looked for. The extent to which the university is culpable is in fact one of the questions here: the way universities in general deal with such mattes, and the ways in which particular universities deal with particular instances, is a subject of great interest and discussion in the US. I continue to think the work of performance art a separate topic. If one title were needed for both, I'd go with the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and Columbia University rape controversy should be merged under the title Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University. There are conflicting interests at play in this unfolding series of events. We should simply write one article under one neutral title that explains thoroughly what transpired. The separation into two articles makes for two non-neutral articles. We should think about the underlying questions. Should art be used by one student to shame a fellow student on a college campus? Should schools place limits on freedom of expression on college campuses? Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

My issue with the current title is the word "rape" being in the title without any qualifiers being attached to it, like alleged or allegation. The title now implies there was a controversy about a person who was convicted of a crime. We should be mindful of WP:BLP in this matter, and since an editor invoked WP:COMMONNAME up above, the sources reporting on this story all clearly agree on "alleged rape" and/or "rape allegations", our article title should reflect that as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what the difference is between this article and the other one. If you can't articulate what this article is about in distinction from what the other article is about, how can you pick a title for either article? If we are to assume that there should be two articles, then the first order of business is to describe how the two articles differ from one another. Then you can perhaps choose an appropriate title for each article. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I share Isaidnoway's concern that the current title makes it sound like Wikipedia is saying that a rape did take place. A title like Columbia University rape allegation controversy or Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University would address this problem, though those are both kind of wordy, and I find the second one a bit confusing. Maybe Columbia University rape allegations? Though that has the vagueness problem that Darwinian Ape pointed out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Columbia University rape allegations? Isn't there a work of art involved? Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Information not in source

Regarding this: I think it's the third time I've removed it, and I've noted repeatedly in edit summaries that it isn't actually in the cited source. If there is another source that does contain this bit of information, we should cite it, but it does need a citation. Nblund (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"According to Sulkowicz, he suddenly and brutally assaulted her, then picked up his clothes and left without a word, leaving her stunned and shattered on the bed."[1] Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BusStop, this information was being cited to two other articles when it was restored previously. I restored the information with a corrected source. Nblund (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Nblund. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg source

I'm of the opinion that the previous summary we had of the source was adequate, and we do not need to verbatim quote it in order to inform the reader of the relevant information from it. However, reasonable minds could disagree. Valoem, why do you believe this verbatim quoting is necessary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I readded this which was removed sometime ago by PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs). This article neutrally portray's both sides and mentions the likelihood that Sulkowicz's account is false, specifically due to the unusual nature of text messages sent after the alleged rape. Per NPOV this must be included, the current tone of [Megan McArdle's] account (paragraph) in the article appears to be favor Sulkowicz's story when in fact she was critical of Sulkowicz's story. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PeterTheFourth that including the full quotes instead of a summary is not necessary for neutrality, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if you can make a convincing argument. (As a side note, it is not true that "nearly all sources have been critical" of Sulkowicz's account. I also do not agree that the current tone of the article appears to favor Sulkowicz's story.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Update: Valoem edited his comment after I responded; see diff to read what I was responding to. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a well sourced detail harms neutrality. Is the content, when expanded disputed for accuracy to what's in the source? Don't see an issue with WP:RS, or WP:BLP. And then, when we consider how harmful the sexual assault allegations are, suppressing these details could be considered a BLP issue for the accused.Mattnad (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing an issue with the reverted edit. Arkon (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), Thanks for the input, I preferred your version, but no, I did not say the "article" favored Sulkowicz, I said "account" which is in reference to Megan McArdle's account of the situation in her article, sorry for the confusion. The Wikipedia article is fairly neutral. However that one paragraph quoting Megan McArdle is not. In the article her subtext states while it is possible Sulkowicz was raped, it is highly unlikely given the interactions afterwards, therefore she is criticizing Nuggusser's decision to sue the school instead of Sulkowicz. Her tone is skeptical of rape, but not ruling it out entirely which is what most non-feminist and non-MRA sources say. We call all agree that both feminist and MRA sources are unreliable and bias with feminists suggesting the rape absolutely occurred and MRAs saying she absolutely lied. After removing these sources, most sources believe the rape accusation is likely to be false, but not ruling it out entirely. The paragraph mentioned McArdle's criticism of Nuggesser's decision to focus the lawsuit on the school, but not the criticism of Sulkowicz's text messages which is why it needs to be included. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon:, can you please clarify, you don't see my edit being an issue or the revert being an issue? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wooops, sorry I wasn't clear, your edit seems fine with me. Arkon (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your original comment (which I understand now that you've edited it to clarify). Without going into the weeds about MRAs and whatnot, I'll point out that the status quo version of the article does mention the criticism of Sulkowicz's messages—it says McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"some problems" is vague. Why not explain the problems per the source?Mattnad (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mattnad: Explaining the problems is different from quoting the source verbatim. Perhaps you'd care to propose a summary? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you concerned about copyvio? The quote(s) in this context are pretty succinct. Rewriting them doesn't improve things necessarily.Mattnad (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree that the quotes we were using were succinct. How does summarising an article not improve on grabbing some sentences and shoving them in with quotes around them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That would mean the current summary wasn't good enough/as good as the proposed edit. For those who see no problem with the edit that is. Arkon (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No problems, it was my fault for not making it clear. It does say McArdle also said that Sulkowitz's account has "some problems" including her messages to Nungesser, but its doesn't give due weight when compared to the criticism of Nugesser. Yes she did criticize his decision to sue the school, but due to the likely falsehood of Sulkowicz's accusation she believes the focus of the lawsuit should be Sulkowicz. 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Valoem: Mcardle states that "the complaint tells us that one person is lying about what happened that night; it doesn't tell us which one." It doesn't sound to me like she is claiming that Sulcowicz's claims are "highly unlikely", she sounds noncommital. Regardless: the section heading is "responses to the lawsuit", so the commentary we choose to recount should focus on the lawsuit, not on people's beliefs about Sulkowicz. There is plenty of commentary that is critical of the suit that isn't cited in that section. Why not replace McCardle (or the lengthy quote from FIRE) with one of these? link, link Nblund ^talk 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Update On closer examination, it appears that much of the material we're discussing was previously removed and was restored in this edit, which didn't really acknowledge the change. Much of the section on "Nungesser's Lawsuit" was taken word for word from the very first version of the article. Some of this material was out of date, plagiarized, or just plain poorly written, and had been improved by subsequent edits without controversy. None of these reversions were justified or explained, or even acknowledged in the edit summary. It shouldn't be this hard to replace quotes with paraphrases or to remove obviously plagiarized or unsourced material. Nblund ^talk 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nblund:, Don't ever accuse me of being counter-productive when an immediately response was not replied. There is no plagiarism here the cited material is in quotations and we are allowed to. The reason for including Mcardle's criticism of Sulkowicz is that she acknowledges Sulkowicz's story may be fictional. Having reviewed both Nblund and PeterTheFourth's editing history, I see an extreme profeminism bias which is also why Nblund attempted to warn me as an attempt to discredit my discussion. Again Nuggesser was found not guilty, Mcardle has been equally critical of Nuggesser's desicion to sue Columbia, as she is to Sulkowicz accusation with evidence favoring Nuggesser. The text messages have been used as evidence against Sulkowicz, yet completely excluded from the paragraph. I've also sent a reply to Nblund on the editors talk page. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I explained the plagiarism here, you agreed and self reverted, but, in this edit, you restored the material once again. I think you made a mistake, I'm not attempting to discredit you at all, but I am attempting to ask that you be more careful, and that you avoid throwing out good edits when you try to fix sections that you disagree with. Nblund ^talk 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Regarding McCardle: that's not really the main thrust of her op-ed, but regardless, her criticism of Sulkowicz is not "commentary on the lawsuit". Sulkowicz wasn't named in the suit. I think it would make more sense to place that criticism in the "reception" section, but we've already got plenty of other op-eds that say similar things. Does McCardle need to be cited in both sections? Nblund ^talk 14:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Before you distort any further what happened. Here is the chronology of events. First you immediately nominated this article for deletion and then proceeded to remove more than just the direct copy-edit from AU News. I restored everything in an attempt to maintain neutrality. You then pinged me to the fact that part of what was restore was copy-edited. I was not aware, but after realizing it was copy pasted (again I did not write that section as I mentioned on your talk page) I immediately reverted and restored your version citing you made a good catch. Now, where after this happened, did I ever re-add that paragraph or any copy edited material? I appears you are attempting to claim I am readding the copy edit, when that is clearly not going on. McCardle constantly implores the reader to review what actually happened during this incident, saying what Sulkowicz said is not what a victim says to her alleged rapist. Her opinion here is obviously important and this should be an uncontroversial edit for a man who was found not guilty and release evidence favoring his story. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes Valoem, you did re-add the plagiarized material after you removed it.

• You removed the plagiarized material here
• You added it again in this edit, 5 months later
• I removed it again last night in this edit.

I do genuinely think this is an accident, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating or unhelpful. Please be more careful, and please be more respectful of other editors.

Regarding McCardle: I think you are misreading that op-ed, but that doesn't really address my point. Sulkowicz wasn't named in the lawsuit, and her guilt or innocence isn't relevant to the case. This might make sense in the "reception" section, but I'm not sure why we would need to cite McCardle twice in this entry. We have other editorials that make roughly the same point, we can add more, but why is this specific quote from this specific author so essential? Nblund ^talk 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nblund: Can you please show me where the plagiarized material was? I went through a vast majority of the sources perhaps I missed one, I am not seeing any plagiarism. Are you talking about the material in quotations? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how much more specific I can be, I've already directed you to the edit and the relevant talk page section. Go to your edit, and then just ctrl+f to the section with "specified grievances include", and then to the paragraph beginning "As a result of publicity". You'll notice that it's the same content we discussed here. The actual quotations are in quotation marks, but much of the text between the quotes is also lifted verbatim from this AU news article.

I'm not sure why you're puzzled about this. It appears that you copied pasted a large portion of that material from an older version of the page with minimal changes to the content. Naturally, this meant restoring the plagiarism, along with other issues. Nblund ^talk 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I was assuming it was this source you were talking about, I did a ctrl+f search there is no match of plagiarism, is there another source? I'll ask for a third opinion, but I am not see any plagiarism. The source which is copied has been added in quotation marks, this is not plagiarism. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? The only parts in quotation marks are the parts that are in quotation marks in the original source. You previously agreed that this was plagiarism. Did you change your mind, or are you not seeing the text I'm referencing? Here's the side by side comparison of the two paragraphs I referenced:

Comparison table

Wikipedia	AU News
Specified grievances include: that a school-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Sulkowicz; that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library, and on campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis; and that Kessler approved the Mattress Project for course credit allegedly in violation of Title IX, a federal law mandating that federally funded educational institutions not discriminate based on gender.	In his lawsuit, Mr Nungesser said a Columbia-owned website had presented as fact that he sexually assaulted Ms Sulkowicz. It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Prof Kessler approved the “Mattress Project” for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Mr Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.
He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day".[45] As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, he says he "has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behavior by other Columbia students".[45] He says he desires to stay in the US, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year and he is seeking consulting work in New York but job prospects have been "severely jeopardised" by the school’s support of Sulkowicz.[48]	“Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,” the suit said.As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Mr Nungesser “has been subjected to severe, pervasive ... and threatening behaviour by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a ‘serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.”The complaint also said he wants to stay in the United States, where he has been dating a girlfriend for over a year, and is seeking consulting work in New York, though job prospects have been “severely jeopardised” by the school’s support of Ms Sulkowicz.

Google Search Results

Can we incorporate these into the main article? If so, should I just suggest an addition and make the edit to the article? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If they're discussed by a reliable secondary source, then we could discuss the possibility of including the information from that source in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Title?

Why is this entry not entitled something like "Columbia University Rape Allegation Controversy"? Isn't that a more accurate title to this whole thing? The current title really has the appearance of victim-blaming. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon: Can you please help me with two things: One - is it appropriate to use google results? If not no problem I am not pushing an agenda here. 2.) I do feel the title is a little misleading. What do you think? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mattnad:, @Isaidnoway:, @PeterTheFourth: Can someone please give me some feedback on the idea of changing the title to this article? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want the article to be moved to a new title, please follow the process at WP:RM#CM. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Response from Sulkowicz/Columbia University response

Instead of arguing over whether a header should say Responses from Sulkowicz and Columbia University or Columbia University response, break this down into two areas of the article under separate headers. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent pov edits in the lead.

There are multiple problems with the lead and since I did not want to be pulled into an edit war, I tagged the article. Can we have a discussion on how to improve the wording, especially in the lead.

In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but declined to pursue an investigation after Sulkowicz discovered the case could extend past her graduation and be a source of secondary victimization, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia"

This part seems to suggest, in wiki voice, that she had some sort of power to halt a criminal investigation. It also contains OR since i could not find anything about being "a source of secondary victimization" in citations. Overall the lead should be a summary but it seems it's more like a statement from Ms. Sulkowicz.

After Columbia failed to take action against Nungesser, Sulkowicz focused her senior thesis on a work of performance art entitled Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

This part is also problematic, claiming "Columbia failed to take action" in wiki voice is a violation of NPOV. It seems the Editor Jayx80 is a bit unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV rules and keep insisting adding heavy pov language into the article. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "secondary victimization" part and rephrased the "failed to take action" part. I am unsure what (if anything) to do about "declined to pursue an investigation" as it pretty closely follows this source. Since the source is an interview with Sulkowicz, maybe the sentence should be rephrased to something like this (possibly slightly confusing, I'm not sure):

In May 2014, Sulkowicz filed a report against Nungesser with the New York Police Department (NYPD), but she said she declined to pursue an investigation after she discovered the case could extend past her graduation, when she would probably want to "erase all of [her] memories of Columbia".

I've also changed "Asian American" to "American", as the sources don't focus on her race from what I can remember. If there are a significant number of sources that do, I'd be happy to change it back. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Columbia University rape controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524012014/http://gothamist.com/2014/05/18/spurned_by_columbia_student_says_ny.php to http://gothamist.com/2014/05/18/spurned_by_columbia_student_says_ny.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Number and Gender

The article repeatedly (but not consistently) refers to single persons in the plural, which is confusing. If Wikipedia has made a collective decision to eliminate gender from its articles, this article should also eliminate gendered terms such as "son" and "daughter", "man" and "woman", etc. Otherwise, the article should conform to standard English rules of number and use singular pronouns for single persons. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a haven for every political quirk. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Per a recent article: "Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them.”" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/is-there-a-smarter-way-to-think-about-sexual-assault-on-campus

This should likely just be cited in the article to avoid confusion. 73.110.34.99 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes but this makes the article almost unreadable. If tomorrow she says her pronoun is 'Lord Jesus Christ' are you going to refer to her as that from now on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.89.78 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have understood that Ms. Sulkowicz likes to be referred to as "them" as part of her way of life. That is of course ok. But obviously, Ms. Sulkowicz is an individual person and not a group of people. I think the choice of language in an encyclopedia should reflect the facts and not an unconventional interpretation of grammar in the light of an artistic way of life. The English version of Wikipedia is also read by many people for whom English is a foreign language (like me). To stay fair, the English version of Wikipedia should be comprehensible to everyone who masters the standard grammar and vocabulary of English. Otherwise, it will get exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.28.92 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Check Singular_they and MOS:GENDERID Nblund ^talk 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) can refer to themselves with any kind of pronoun but they can't tell others what pronoun they must use for them. You can't force english speakers to say Yerusalem, or spanish speakers to not to call New York Nueva York. So I am gonna change the article to the proper pronouns she/her.

Can someone at least re-work the sentences to make them readable? e.g. In the intro, "them in Sulkowicz's dorm room" can be changed to "Sulkowicz in their dorm room", which makes the sentence not sound completely wrong, and still leaves the gender issue unresolved. 190.149.63.130 (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Michael

That makes it sounds like Sulkowicz shared a dorm room with their alleged assailant. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed all "they" to "Sulkowicz" and corrected verb number to singular (e.g. "were" to "was"). This makes it accurate but still awkward without resolving the larger "they" argument.Smulthaup (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Eschewing pronouns all together is unhelpful. It's inconsistent with the way that other reliable sources have referred to Sulkowicz, and it makes it appear as though Wikipedia is bending over backward to avoid using their preferred pronoun. "They" has been used as an gender-neutral singular pronoun for at least six centuries now, so I remain pretty skeptical of any editor who claims to be unable to wrap their heads around it. Nblund ^talk 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"They" is in common usage as a singular pronoun and reflects sources used in this article. Mass removals of the pronoun are disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have submitted this to RfC - biographies.Smulthaup (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template because this section isn't validly formatted as an RfC; the initial "question" isn't phrased neutrally as is required (it's not even phrased intelligibly, because it misunderstands the reason 'they' is used in the article). (I'm also not sure that turning someone else's post into an RfC is kosher...) We could perhaps discuss in this section whether or not to formulate a proper RfC, but bear in mind that a "local consensus" can't override the broader consensus behind the guideline on pronoun use. -sche (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At a minimum, from the WP:GENDERID: "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." should apply. On that basis I will revert to include "(who refers to one's self by the non-gender binary pronoun 'them')". However, I think the number agreement of the verb should still be singular and not plural. I still endorse that an RfC is needed. Since you seem interested in the subject, I volunteer you to create the "properly formatted RfC". Smulthaup (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The article indeed (already) has such an explanation, in its first section. :)
My point is that I don't think one could write an RfC here that could overturn the guideline. And if you (or dost thou object also to singular 'you', which is a much more recent development than singular 'they'?) want a discussion about the guideline, those have already been had ad a fair degree of nauseam...
As for number agreement: over the centuries it's been in use, singular 'they' has taken plural verbs, like also singular 'you', so when a reader sees singular 'they', that's the number-agreement they expects. -sche (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - the WP:BLP or maybe WP:MOS pages would probably be the appropriate places to bring up an RfC like that, but I doubt proposal above would gain any traction. As -sche points out, singular "they" tends to follow the same conjugation rules as singular "you" (and the royal "we"), so it's "you/they are" not "you/they is". Some sources on this: 1, 2. Nblund ^talk 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Named Accused

According to another Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) ) the accused should not be named since they made attempts to conceal their privacy over the course of the incident:

"Q4: Why does the article not name the accused?

A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included."

Should all explicit references to him by name by removed? Tibbs runner (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This came up in the deletion discussion, but I'm not sure that was ever really sorted out - this article is largely a copy of an old version of the Mattress Performance article that predates the controversy about naming the accused and which has a longer discussion of the facebook messages and whatnot - so that may be what is meant by the "full defense"? Nblund ^talk 22:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

can i change the wording

even using the preferred pronouns the sentence would sound better than "Sulkowicz said that Sulkowicz declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"

after "Sulkowicz said that they declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them"Nailo1234 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No. If we use they/them, we need these ridiculous-sounding sentences to make things clear. I changed the wording from your after version to before version, because to a normal person "Sulkowicz said that they declined..." reads like "Sulkowicz said the NYPD declined...", so it is critical to the meaning of the sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

ok, i won't change itNailo1234 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz.

Incomplete edit summary

I hit the "enter" key accidentally and submitted this edit before completing the edit summary. What I was going to say was: I'm not sure how we can justify removing opinions supporting Sulkowicz by stating that opinion content 'doesn't belong' and then at the same time add an opinion critical of Sulkowicz. In principal I'm not opposed to adding the statement from Halley in the opinion section, but the article already contains a disproportionate number of anti-Sulkowicz sources as it is and we should probably attempt a rough balance. Nblund ^talk 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sentence regarding Cathy Young

Hi All. Regarding this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them, with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Arkon (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to advise you to take this to BLP/N if you feel it's a BLP violation, as this is both reliably sourced and relevant to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP/N here. Arkon (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also asked for a self revert on PeterTheFourth's talk page, given the BLP concerns and the reason/edit summary given. Arkon (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issue is resolved if I had to make a judgement, however the above question remains (re: sourced to Jezebel vs. other sources presented elsewhere). Please provide feedback here regarding this edit. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the edit you've linked, restoring the commentary from Erin Gloria Ryan, is a good one—it's important, relevant commentary, especially given the way the article relies excessively on Young's opinions. Ryan's characterization of her as "reliably rape-skeptical" should probably be restored too, for the same reason. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems like we should use the sources from here to form a wording, I'm afraid Erin Gloria Ryan doesn't really seem like an authority on the topic, even getting a last word on the previous section. Aren't those sources better? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We could use the Washington Post source, which says "Young has written a number of stories critical of campus anti-rape activism". That conveys a similar meaning, while coming from a source that may be more reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I like it. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of that edit though, should be in the first paragraph, should be sourced to WAPO if anything, and definitely shouldn't have that prominence to Young's opinion. Arkon (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, disputed text (the jezebel opinion is still there). Arkon (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the remaining part of Ryan's argument is still important to include. I'm not sure I understand which paragraph you're saying the Washington Post quote should be in. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What's this nonsense about " (Their pronouns. They go by they/them instead of she/her) "

I don't know if it was incompetence or vandalism, but the quote "wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia"[2] got changed to "all of [them]" and then [all of their]. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: do you want to tell me why you changed a quotation? None of the discussion above makes sense to me, which is why I've started a new one here. The sources support my edits so far as I can see. You can't go around changing quotations, for a start. The rest is in line with the sources also. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other stuff: Sulkowicz uses "they/them" pronouns not "she/her". I agree that changing "my" to "them" seems pointless Actually the version with brackets reads better. Square brackets are one acceptable way of indicating that a quotation has been changed are are one of the suggested ways of addressing quotations in the MOS:GENDERID guidelines. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: How does MOS:GENDERID relate? That's about people whose gender might be questioned. Why do you think that's the case here? As far as the brackets go, she said "which would be after I graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from my brain anyway, so I decided not to pursue it." I can see the problem that exists the way it's now written, but as I asked, where is the justification for saying she uses "they/them"? I could have missed something but I don't see it. And I never talk about myself as him. I don't expect her to use "she/her" in talking about herself. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's cited in the entry, to this article. The relevant quote: "'Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them.”". I think "my" is fine there, but I still think it reads better with the brackets. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal bigotry and stubborn insistence on disrespecting someone doesn't really apply. We use the pronouns people go by when referring to them in Wikipedia articles, per the first sentence of MOS:GENDERID. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: are you referring to me? By the way, I did miss that quote, but did check to see that the article uses "her" and "she": " Sulkowicz said that the conversation with Natalie prompted her to file a formal complaint to the university. She filed her complaint on April 18, 2013"..." Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone can see you using the wrong pronouns again and again, after being informed. Not subtle. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, that's serious nonsense. I came here to find out why I was being told that S. uses they/them, particularly after I saw that a quotation had been changed. I'm a strong believer in MOS:GENDERID and you can search for my posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and see if they show any prejudice. Go ahead and complain about me there if you still think I'm prejudiced. I see we have Category:People with non-binary gender identities but I don't have the time to see if any of the BLPs there have subjects that specifically state they use they and them. It's a problem as can be seen by the fact we do use she and her in the sentence I quoted, and using they and them is clumsy but maybe you are right, it's inevitable. I'm tempted to ask there how to respect their wishes while writing an article that isn't likely to be changed and doesn't have clunky sentences. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I came here because I found this edit and if you look at the editor's talk page you'll see I added a BLP DS template after I saw it. Doug Weller talk

Gender neutral language

Editors here might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on the issue of gender neutral language, arising out of an editor quickly changing "mankind" to "humankind" in about 150 articles. @PeterTheFourth:, I've made it clear where I stand on this (not where you seem to think I stand). Doug Weller talk 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phafner (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol

As a recent edit might charitably be interpreted as having suggested (although it was worded badly), the video seems like it might be relevant enough to mention and link-to in the article's prose, and not just in the 'See also' section where it is now. A sentence could be added to the section "Sulkowicz's performance art piece" (possibly even changing the section title from "piece" to "pieces"), perhaps along the lines of "Sulkowicz later created another piece of performance art, Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol ("This is not a rape"), a website with an eight minute video of Sulkowicz having sex with an anonymous actor in a dorm room at Columbia University." (Using but condensing the wording of that article's lead.) What do you think? (Has this been discussed before? I don't see any prior discussion on this talk page.) -sche (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been discussed before as far as I can recall. I agree that it's worth a mention, and the wording you've suggested sounds good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. -sche (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming the accused (Paul Nungesser)

The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) states that Nungesser is not named in that article due to BLP and notability issues, however his name appears prominently in this article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#"The accused" (Paul Nungesser) to address the inconsistency. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The article title is wrong - it was a rape accusation, not a rape

Paul Nungesser was found not responsible 158.123.57.161 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't allowed to take a position on whether there was a rape or not. The idea of moving the article to another title has been discussed before, but the discussions fizzled with no result. Above, I suggested the title Columbia University rape allegations. If you want the article to be moved, you can follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Another possibility that has been proposed is merging this article into Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of non-binary »they/them« pronouns

I know this has been discussed above, but not solved yet, so I changed the use of pronouns back to standard English practices. Just because Sulkowicz identifies as non-binary and uses »they/them« pronouns, does not mean that an encyclopaedic article about her should do the same. Wikipedia doesn’t exist to pursue an individual preference writing style, but to deliver facts as clearly comprehensible as possible. This aim is certainly not achieved, when »they/them/their« are used to replace »her«. Doing so, as was the state here on 22nd September 2018, distorts and obscures the facts in important ways, for example:

• »…alleging he had raped them in Sulkowicz's dorm room…« – implies more than one person was raped.

• »…what began as a consensual sexual encounter in their room turned non-consensual…« – implies that they shared a dorm room, which is false.

• »…Nungesser choked them, slapped their face, held their wrists, and anally raped them…« is an almost comically inept way to describe a serious allegation, which should be written in as clear a language as possible.

• It becomes even more weird, when the next paragraph uses »they« throughout to convey the plural meaning again. But in the paragraph after that, we are back to maximum confusion, with »them« used to convey singular and plural in the same sentence!: »…Sulkowicz expressed concern that the messages would be used to present them as unreliable, and stated they had sent them because they were upset and wanted to talk to him.…« – Surely this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is read worldwide by millions of people for whom English is the second or third language. How are they supposed to comprehend what is being said here?

• But it gets even worse: »…By the time of Sulkowicz's last message, which they sent in March 2013, they said they had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether they had tried talking to the accused.…« – Try figuring out when »they« means Sulkowicz, and when »they« means the Office of Gender-Based Misconduct. You have to read the sentence at least three times, and still the last two »they«s could be interpreted either way, as »she« + »they«, or as »they« + »she«. The reader has no way of knowing without looking at the source.

I have great respect for the important issues of gender preference acceptance, but making language incomprehensible is not the way to do it. Something like »[her]«, or alternatively [their], might be acceptable if it becomes a Wikipedia-wide standard. But until it does, we should stick to standard English practices. --Sprachraum (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: - I was confused myself when I read this, but I agreed we should follow our guideline at MOS:IDENTITY which says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. [...] Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' [sic]' may be used where necessary)." Doug Weller talk 08:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - Dear Doug, thanks for quoting that, but I think you will agree that the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY does not specifically address the problems caused by (for example) using »they« as a substitute for »her« – and names no remedy if this leads to factual confusion and renders the text almost illegible in parts, as I have pointed out above. So the Manual of Style needs to find specific solutions for dealing with this problem. Simply reverting to the state the article had before, is not a solution. Adding the FAQ from the other article (which is full of the same problems) to the talk page, helps only for someone who finds it on the talk page. It does not address the reading issues in the text itself. So there needs to be a general discussion and solution for this problem. I don't know where that should take place (i'm from the German Wikipedia), so that is up to others.

If you think something is unclear, you might try rewording it in a way that still uses Sulkowicz's preferred pronouns. Using "her" is inaccurate and doesn't comply with MOS:GENDERID. The manual of style policy was the result of a widespread community consensus. Maybe post on the Manual of Style talk page if you really think it is a windmill worth tilting at. Nblund ^talk 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello@Nblund:, that you have simply reverted my changes has done nothing to solve the problems I've pointed out. It is not that »I think« something is unclear; it is demonstrably unclear and unfactual language. Just pointing to MOS:GENDERID is laziness on your part, because the style guide contains nothing at all about how to deal with the problems of using »they/them« pronouns for both self-defined non-binary people, and for normal plural, as this text does in your now reverted state. So how can there be a community consensus on this? As I have pointed out, [brackets] may be a solution, if there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus on that, but that should also be part of the style guide then, surely. I'm disappointed in your lazy revert, but I have no time to fight this through, if you can't see for yourself how untenable the text is in its current state. --Sprachraum (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID doesn't lay out specific guidelines on "they/them", but it does make it abundantly clear that we should avoid misgendering people. If you read that guideline, and your solution was "just call Sulkowicz 'her'", then I'm afraid you might have a general reading comprehension issue that extends beyond issues with pronoun usage. There might be ways to improve clarity, but using them/them best reflects reliable sources, Sulkowicz's preferences and Wikipedia policies. Nblund ^talk 14:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit of a quandary here, because the use of "them" as this sentence "alleging he had raped them..." is in fact a BLP violation as it implies the accuser raped more than one person. This wording should be changed or improved. Which policy takes precedence here - MOS or BLP? I'm really not sure how else to word it without continually using Sulkowitz's name. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Them" in this case clearly refers to Sulkowicz in the singular. This is a standard use of the pronoun, and the lead names no other person whom "them" would refer to. If there were any ambiguity, we would clarify the wording while still using the correct gender, just like any other pronoun. –dlthewave ☎ 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Them no more carries that implication than the sentence "she raped him" in an article about a woman raping one man would imply that she raped some other man: pronouns are deictic, and the context of this article makes the referrent clear. (Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you.) -sche (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Singular they is of long standing in English, indeed it is older than the now-similarly-widespread singular you. Huh? Grandpallama (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: singular they is attested since the 1300s, within a hundred years of when English first borrowed plural they from Old Norse (to replace the native Old English third-person plural hie). You only became common as a generic singular in the 1600s, replacing thou. (And the use of you as a singular was controversial at the time!) -sche (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(I fear we are in danger of straying off the topic of this article, however...)

Thanks! That's fascinating (and worth a small tangential trip). I'd never heard this before, and I'm a recovering medievalist, so I'd like to read up on it a bit more. Grandpallama (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Came here to point out it's totally unreadable. So add me to the list of people Nblund thinks is dumb.146.115.150.192 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a looong list, friendo Nblund ^talk 16:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who loves Wikipedia, this is embarrassing. Stop with the copy-and-pasted Oceania's history of the English language. Citing studies which you have clearly not even bothered to read doesn't help your argument. I obviously agree it's unreadable, and more importantly, it's not in keeping with encyclopedic standards. 2601:18F:4101:4830:C05A:15B6:D2BA:E0ED (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that people who want to reduce the number of words in the language—"I don't like these pronouns, they're ungood, people should only be allowed to use a limited number of pronouns!"—invoke 1984. 😂 -sche (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry -sche, but you are totally missing the point. It is not about »I don't like«. The point is that this article deals with a serious crime accusation, which needs to have its known facts described in the most precise and readable language. The current language instead serves to obfuscate, and in some cases falsify, the sources – because some Wikipedia users here have decided that it is more important to go along with the self-descriptive non-standard language of one of the protagonists, than to use the sort of precise language a court case would use to lay out the facts of the accusation. As the contributor above states correctly, this undermines encyclopedic standards. A gender-political preference has trumped the effective communication of facts – which I find especially disappointing because I am a supporter of gender-sensitive language. The absurd and ideological way it is employed here however, serves to make the case for all opponents of gender-sensitive language. It pains me that they can point to this article and say »look how ridiculous that is« – and they would even be right. So this is self-defeating, and I would even prefer all obfuscating pronouns to be replaced by the name of the person, again and again. That would make the text cumbersome, but at least the facts would be communicated correctly. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: The personal difficulty you encounter with nonbinary pronouns does not mean we need to change the article so you may better understand it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: my personal English skills are fine. You are taking a »head-in-the-sand« approach to the objective problems (layed out in detail at the top) that this use of nonbinary pronouns leads to. You are placing ideology above comprehension – which serves to discredit the ideology, instead of promoting it. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the correct pronouns is not an 'ideology' so much as it is the absence of profound disrespect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be profoundly disrespectful to refer to Sulkowicz as "she"? Bus stop (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that they're not female, yes, in the same way it would be disrespectful to refer to me as 'she' or Donald Trump as 'she'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No source says "they're not female". I am only aware of sources such as this. It is saying Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them." Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Non-binary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all you don't have to ping me. But getting to the point, you have not presented a source supporting your assertion. I'm referring to your assertion "they're not female". Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you quoted a relevant passage from that article. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Sulkowicz uses "they"/"them" pronouns, and MOS:GENDERID says that we should defer to those preferences. What are you disputing here?Nblund ^talk 21:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In the most recent published interview with Sulkowicz (), she chose to go with she/her pronouns. That should be we should be able to make this article actually readable using the proper single-person pronouns. At least until she changes her mind again, which highlights the stupidity of slavishly following personal identity when attempting to write clear, encyclopedic text. 76.211.117.219 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have posted this in a few other places, but the poster above is 100% correct. In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz. Phafner (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems sensible to adopt the FAQ at the top of Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope Nblund ^talk 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Q4 (on naming the accused) would need to be removed from the version to be used here, since it seems to apply only to that article, whereas this one seems to have had a consensus to name him (since it does so). But the Qs about pronouns etc seem useful to copy over. (And maybe the BLPN RfC will reach a decision about naming him.) -sche (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have copied over the relevant/applicable questions, dropping the one about naming the other student, and the one about why the other article has the title it does. -sche (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Facebook messages

They are not quoted above, the messages in their entirety is his defense, removing the FB messages is a violation of NPOV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, I don't know how else to say this: but you need to read more carefully before editing. One message is quoted here, they're also mentioned again here. "The messages in their entirety" span around 4 pages, and I don't think it is Wikipedia's role to recite Nungesser's entire defense. I'm not seeing how quoting the facebook messages (without any additional commentary) is informative or useful. Can you explain why all three quotes are essential in this section? Nblund ^talk 21:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's absurd to quote the same message twice in the same article, and quoting the messages in their entirely would obviously be infeasible (and would be excessive reliance on primary sources anyway IMO). —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the entire primary source serves no purpose and lacks context. The existing summary of the Facebook messages under "Allegations" is sufficient; there is no need to duplicate. –dlthewave ☎ 01:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the duplicate text. I see that "lol yussss. Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz [...] because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr" was included in the top, but "Wanna hang out a little bit before meeting tonight? Maybe you have your phone back, I'll text yaaa" and "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!" was not. Quoting the messages in their entirely would not be infeasible as it is already done. These messages were used as evidence that the sex was consensual, keep in mind Nuggesser was found not guilty and he sued the school with the outcome coming in his favor. Compare the two versions, the text message, strongly influences the readers views on his guilt. We must present this article neutrally Nuggesser strongest arguments cannot be removed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We include content relevant to its coverage in reliable sources, not so we can defend or attack people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct, not including the information which is verified by both parties is not attacking but NPOV. Nuguessar was found not guilty, mainstream media has focused on these texts as the main evidence of his innocence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The facebook messages weren't part of his defense at the university inquiry, that was one of his complaints. You keep placing these quotes in the "lawsuit" section, but the citations don't link them to the lawsuit and it doesn't sound like you actually think they're relevant to the lawsuit. You also still haven't explained why we need 3 quotations, or why we would include these messages without any explanatory context. Nblund ^talk 12:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Facebook messages were used as the fundamental argument against Columbia University which the university settled out of court. Media has also used as evidence that the accusation was likely falsified. Removed the messages is removing the strongest part of this controversy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The messages are already mentioned twice and quoted once, and you need to stop pretending that this debate is about "removing the messages". Its a question of where and how much to discuss them. Why are all three quotes essential? Why is just one quote insufficient?

The cited source for that section predates the lawsuit. The lawsuit itself focused on claims of gender discrimination which didn't necessarily hinge on Nungesser's guilt or innocence. Much of the press coverage of the lawsuit doesn't mention the facebook messages at all (examples: WaPo, NYT, CNN). Can you provide sources that explain why and how the facebook messages where essential for this lawsuit? Nblund ^talk 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources you are looking for Reason.com, jezebel, this is here POV, Chicago Sun Times, The Mining Journal all of these sources suggest she lied, the Wikipedia article does not show the cited evidence as a false accusation, we don't do that here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

all of these sources suggest she lied - this is not even remotely close to what I asked for. I asked for sources that explained why and how the Facebook messages were essential to the lawsuit, and some explanation for why these three quotes needed to be included verbatim. The Mining Journal/Chicago Sun Times source (it's the same article reprinted in a different outlet) doesn't mention the the lawsuit at all. Neither does the Jezebel source. Cathy Young's editorial does mention it, but it's simply a single sentence that says the messages "figured heavily" in to the suit without explanation. It should go without saying that a Cathy Young editorial is not a viable model for a BLP entry.

The assertion that the Wikipedia "does not show the cited evidence" is flatly false, as has been explained repeatedly: the article mentions the Facebook messages already in two separate places. Mona Charen is already cited. Cathy Young is cited (14 times). It may not present the evidence in precisely the way that you prefer it, but it does present it. You're treading in to WP:IDHT territory here. Nblund ^talk 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

NBlund the WP:IDHT accusation makes no sense as I have provided the sources you require. I've mention this on the Emma Sulkowicz talk page here is the Nungesser lawsuit.

Line 27.

Two days later on August 29, 2012, Paul Facebook messaged Emma to invite her to a gathering in his room, stating, "small shindig in our room tonight bring cool freshmen." Emma messaged back four minutes later, "lol yussss also ifeel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz." Paul immediately agreed, writing "word." Emma continued, because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmerrrrr." Paul responded "when are you guys coming through." Emma wrote, "I’ll probs come at 10:45. Is that cool?0." Paul wrote back "sweet - yeah - you at the fencing thing." Emma wrote back "Yeah I’m just gonna chill with them for a bit haha is ado a rager?" 3 Paul wrote back "naah - a little too many guys right now haha - so bring some peepz." Emma wrote back "Okay let them know I’ll be der w dafemales spon." At 11:06 p.m., she messaged Paul "Ack are people still there? Heading over now."

Line 28.

Paul remained at the ADP party but he and Emma did not see one another. The next day, he messaged her at 4:55 p.m., "part II tonight - you’re coming?" She messaged him Her reference to ADP, Alpha Delta Pi, was to the coed fraternity of which she and Paul were both members, Some ADP members live in the ADP house near campus. [8] back seconds later, "lol i came and left

lready!" Paul responded, "lolcats - when were you here - I dont believe you its not the truth - to the tune ofpretty women."

Line 29:

Two weeks later, on September 9, 2012, Emma messaged Paul, "I wanna see yoyououoyou" Thereafter, Paul sent Emma a happy birthday message as follows ’oh hai happy born day! you better be celebrating muchos, no? also: donde estas tu i mi viva - see i’m so desperate with out you, i even try to speak spanish, 4- anywho: merry happy days!" Emma responded, "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!"

Here is responses to the text NYTimes

"Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. After The Daily Beast published the exchanges, Sulkowicz explained them to the website Jezebel, recalling, “I’m being irrational, thinking that talking with him would help me. Sulkowicz says some of the Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. Her recollection is at odds with that of a graduate student who attended the hearings with Nungesser, as his designated “supporter,” and said the messages were not included. In court, the Facebook messages surrounding the night of the alleged rape would probably be admitted in a criminal case as relevant, according to Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern University law professor, and the alleged victim would also have the chance to explain them. (This is also what Columbia’s policy now appears to provide, though the rule was somewhat different at the time of the hearing."

Jezebel also interviewed Sulkowicz where he confirmed that she sent the message without being threaten. Jezebel and NYPost. I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have demonstrated significant sources mentioning the Facebook messages as evidence.. Everyone agrees that the messages are important for the story, that's why they're cited in the entry. I'm asking for sources that explain how these quotes are central for the lawsuit against Colombia University. I understand that they are mentioned, but court filings often contain lots of information that isn't legally significant.

You've cited the lawsuit itself (which isn't secondary and so can't explain its own importance) and a New York Times article, which mentions the suit, but doesn't explain how it connects to the Facebook messages. Ironically, the Times article cites the same message in the same context that you removed in this edit - so I'm not sure why you think this helps your case. Unless you can offer some sort of coherent justification for this edit, then I think this conversation is over Nblund ^talk 21:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a political platform, it is an encyclopedia. In 2014, when these allegations first surfaced, public opinion was highly in favor of Sulkowicz because Nungesser denied to defend himself publicly. Columbia failed to find fault causing more uproar, Sulkowicz then attempted to go to the NYPD, Nungesser showed these messages as evidence this was false. In his lawsuit which I posted above Nungesser stated that Sulkowicz falsified the charges because of an "unrequited romantic relationship" and provided these message as evidence. After the messages were released public opinion turned completely against her, which sources I provided clearly shows. These is why any public video about this person received massive dislikes. These messages are a core to Nungesser's defense, and he was found not guilty as a result. Removing these messages blurred the controversy, are you suggesting this man got away with a crime? If this is the case then you need to provide sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, that's not accurate. Nungesser wasn't found "guilty" or "not guilty" (the rape case wasn't brought to trial). In the university hearing where he was found not responsible, he wasn't allowed to introduce the Facebook messages as evidence. Of course it's also not true that "public opinion turned completely against her". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I've provided every single source needed to show the importance of the FB messages no one has said anything is wrong with the sources. The Sulkowicz attempted to bring the case to formal trail, but was dropped by the NYPD as she could provide no evidence. The FB messages were introduced in the lawsuit against Columbia University which forced the university to settle out of court. The university issued a statement “Columbia recognizes that after the conclusion of the investigation, Paul’s remaining time at Columbia became very difficult for him and not what Columbia would want any of its students to experience. Columbia will continue to review and update its policies toward ensuring that every student — accuser and accused, including those like Paul who are found not responsible — is treated respectfully and as a full member of the Columbia community.” NYTimes. The only reason to not included Facebook message an attempt use this encyclopedia to portray Sulkowicz as a victim, this is clear bias editing with a political agenda of promoting feminism and we certainly don't do that here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's more accurate than what you said before, although still not completely accurate (Sulkowicz didn't attempt to bring the case to trial). Anyway, no one is saying that the Facebook messages shouldn't be covered in the article at all. They're already covered appropriately—the extra addition was overkill. The goal here is not to portray anyone as a victim or not a victim, but rather to accurately and proportionately reflect what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

She she did she went to the NYPD Spurned By Columbia, Student Says NYPD Mistreated Her While Reporting Rape, reliable sources have questioned the veracity of her account any reason not to include? And no the complete message is 5 lines long not overkill. It has been confirmed by both sides it shows Sulkowicz elected to maintain endearing and warm messages over an extended period of time to someone who she claimed raped her. Readers can draw their own conclusions about what that means. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we generally don't leave it up to the reader to interpret primary sources. We prefer secondary sources that provide analysis and context. Some of our sources explain why they continued to send messages and why this is normal. The fact is that the significance and meaning of a primary source is often counterintuitive, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions may lead them in the wrong direction. –dlthewave ☎ 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Primary Source, Not Primary source and Nor primary source, you are running out of reasons to not cover this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:LINKSINACHAIN: quotes themselves are still primary. Quotes can be useful, but we need to provide additional context to clarify their significance to the story. More importantly: the Facebook messages are covered elsewhere on the page, but they are covered in a way that explains why they were important and also explains why there was a disagreement about whether they were useful evidence. Nblund ^talk 13:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the reason that this conversation has now gone on for over a week, the objections to your preferred version have been laid out by multiple editors citing a number of policies and positions, and not a single editor has been persuaded to endorse your interpretation? In other words, the reason is because the consensus is clearly not to include them to the degree you want, and you have not successfully swayed that consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: None of my points have been disputed, all these "editors" have a history editing feminist topics they are not being neutral here. The controversy is the lie here all source release after Nungesser's Facebook messages defend him not Sulkowicz. This article's current tone suggests the controversy maybe Nungesser getting away with rape, his strongest defense is messages, it unless neutral editors participate the consensus is invalid this is called mobbing. My arguments have not been refuted. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

None of which refutes my point that you have failed to gain any traction with your arguments or change consensus. If you feel compelled to continue, you should file a RfC. Grandpallama (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

While an RfC might be preferable to continuing to flog this dead horse, I don't really think it's warranted here since there's a fairly clear consensus already. Valoem: if you choose to go this route, then you would need to ask the straightforward question of whether this version is preferable to the current version. If you post an RfC that asks "should we include the Facebook messages?", I might have an aneu rysm.

As for biased editing: you need to either bring that accusation to ANI and provide diffs or you need to drop it all together. Nblund ^talk 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's brainstorm that (a possible RfC or straw poll question). Is it sufficient to ask "Should the Facebook messages be quoted in their entirety?", or is the question "Should the Facebook messages be quoted in their entirety in the section on Nungesser's lawsuit?" ? (I see they are currently mentioned and quoted in several places, which has both benefits and drawbacks.)
I think it might be better to avoid voting on specific diffs, because e.g. in the diff you link to, not all of the contextual information (like "By the time of Sulkowicz's last message, which they sent in March 2013, they said they had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether they had tried talking to the accused...") has been moved along with the messages into the same section, which means that even people who might want to quote the messages in their entirety might !vote against that diff as not being NPOV, and/or if an RfC decided in favor of that diff, there might then be edit-warring over whether or not adding contextualizing information to (rather than subtracting from) the messages was consistent with the RfC.
If we go the "Is [diff A] or diff B a better way to cover the Facebook messages?" route, we should try to mock up a diff where all the relevant contextual information is also moved into the =Facebook messages= section — either to offer it as diff A or, if anyone is wedded to diff, then at least to offer the contextualized version as a third option. -sche (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me we already have consensus, so I think an RFC is unnecessary and would just be a drain on the community's time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: Neither version quotes the messages in their entirety, there are over four pages of Facebook messages. Including the relevant context in the lawsuit subsection doesn't make much sense, since the messages and the context aren't particularly relevant to the lawsuit. I've asked why these three quotes are essential and why they should be in the lawsuit subsection, I still haven't gotten a coherent answer. I agree that this version is transparently non-neutral, but I haven't seen any indication that that is an accident. Nblund ^talk 03:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of pronouns, language regarding dropping charges

...are under discussion at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz/Archive 1#Removal_of_pronouns and Talk:Emma Sulkowicz#"Sulkowicz_stated_that_Sulkowicz_declined_to_pursue", since that article contains language about the same things and has been subject to similar back-and-forth editing. In the interest of clarity, let me leave this pointer here and centralize discussion there. -sche (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sulkowicz Chose Pronouns

In the article that is listed as source 17 (https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html), Sulkowicz instructed the author to use the pronouns she/her. This article is from 8/28/19. The article is quoted below:

"Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her."

Unless there is more current information available, this should put the question of which pronouns to use for Sulkowicz to bed. Not only do she and her clarify the article by clearing the confusion on plurality, the very person who we are referring to chose them. If anyone has more current and conflicting information, then please share it. If none can be found or none exists, then Wikipedia should use she/her when referring to Sulkowicz.Phafner (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in full. Just because one article said that a person "sometimes" used "they/them pronouns" isn't a license to rewrite their biography using those pronouns. That's just turning an encyclopedia article into some sort of culture-war battleground (while making it all but incomprehensible in a number of places). This is doubly true if she has most recently said to refer to her as "she", meaning that referring to her as "they/them" is actually going against what we know of her wishes. Elle Kpyros (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested title change: Columbia University rape accusation controversy

I feel like this is a more neutral title than the current one, which implies there actually was a rape, as opposed to it being a he said/she said situation. Jtrainor (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:BLPCRIME. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes this does make more sense. 47.19.130.149 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)